Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 March 21

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 21

Libertarian figures in science

I'm trying find some names associated with science who hold libertarian political views. This may include medical doctors, scientists, science writers etc. The prominent names I know are of course Ron Paul (medical doctor), John Locke (medical doctor). I'm not sure if all the poeple listed in Scientists opposing mainstream view on global warming are really libertarians or not. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

When you say "libertarian" do you mean the broad philosophical concepts of libertarianism or the narrower, more specific platform of a political party such as the US Libertarian Party (United States) ? In either case, I am sure that you cannot put everyone mentioned in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming under a single philosophical or political umbrella. The people on this list have reached different (and probably mistaken) conclusions about the scientific evidence for global warming, but their views do not seem to have any common political motivation. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's nothing in the definition of being a "libertarian" (any definition) which makes one more or less predisposed to be a climate change skeptic. There are libertarians who accept the conclusions of climate change science, and there are those that are skeptical of it, and there are those at any stage in between. --Jayron32 11:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If you believe in global warming, caused by humans, then you would tend to favor big government solutions (regulations, etc.) to fight it, and this is anathema to Libertarians. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing the descriptive and normative aspects of the question. The existence of anthropogenic global warming is a descriptive question and completely neutral politically. What to do about it, if you think it exists, is a normative question.

There are lots of possibilities for how a (big-or-small-l) libertarian might answer the second question, having come to an affirmative answer on the first. But whatever answer is arrived at on the normative question does not affect the descriptive one. --Trovatore (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing is that people who believe in a world without big government must believe that big government is not needed. And this means they tend not to believe that major problems, like global warming, occur due to lack of government regulation. The could, however, believe that global warming occurs due to nature. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, again, you're mixing up description and prescription. A libertarian wants as little government regulation as possible (possibly none); that doesn't mean he necessarily has any different description of its effects. If a libertarian finds that the evidence supports anthropogenic global warming, he has various choices. He could say, of course in general I don't like government regulation, but it's a necessity in this case. He could say, I dislike government regulation so much that I'm willing to let the icecaps melt. He could say, the evidence shows that CO2 emissions constitute aggression, and therefore in this case regulation of them is a proper function of government. Or he could say, I'm going to look for a market solution.

I suppose it's also possible that he could say, because of this one case, I withdraw my objection to government regulation in general, and am no longer a libertarian. But of all the options, that's probably the least likely. --Trovatore (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You still don't understand; a person's world-view colors their perception of every problem. Ever heard the expression "If all you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail" ? This applies here. A person with a philosophy which supports government interventions will tend to see many problems which demand government intervention, and a person who opposes government interventions will tend not to see any problems which require it. This could either be a result of "putting blinders on" to ignore "inconvenient truths" which point out deficiencies in their philosophy, or could be the reverse, where they chose a libertarian philosophy precisely because they don't see any problems which require government intervention. Yes, there may be exceptions, but I am describing the tendency. Libertarians perceiving the global warming problem the same as everyone else is as likely as whites in South Africa having perceived Apartheid the same way as blacks did. I suggest you read this essay, particularly the 2nd to last paragraph: [1]. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You said you disagreed with Jayron that there are libertarians on all sides of the descriptive question. Jayron is right, and you are wrong. This is unambiguous. --Trovatore (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said. What I said is that they would TEND to be on one side more than the other. Do you not understand the word tend ? StuRat (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming that libertarians can't separate fact from what's convenient for them. That isn't true. Yes, it's a human tendency to believe what's most convenient, and libertarians are certainly not immune, but that doesn't constitute something "in the definition of being a libertarian", as Jayron put it, that predisposes you to be a global-warming skeptic. --Trovatore (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

StuRat said: "If you believe in global warming, caused by humans, then you would tend to favor big government solutions (regulations, etc.) to fight it, and this is anathema to Libertarians". -- Not necessarily, they could see it as an exception in the same way that most see the need for a police force and an army. Or they could see it as inevitable, but hope that innovation would come up with ways of mitigating it for those who could afford to do so, -- Q Chris (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

True, which is why I used the word "tend" instead of "force them". StuRat (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, lets forget the climate change thingy, I just need to know some names of science-related people who professes libertarian views, just like Ron Paul. By libertarian I mean what is meant in the US, socially liberal, fiscally conservative. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Andre Marrou went to MIT. That doesn't make him automatically a scientist, or science related, but a large number of MIT graduates go on to science-related careers. Michael Badnarik was a computer scientist. That's just a quick perusal of Libertarian presidential candidates. --Jayron32 11:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

But on the other hand, a "libertarian" in the US is often just a particular brand of social conservative, so I'm not sure that distinction is going to be helpful here. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, that's a rather unusual statement. How many social conservatives want to legalize drugs and prostitution? --Trovatore (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. US Republicans, generally, hold that the US should use the military to maintain control of the world and support US interests abroad, while US Libertarians are totally isolationist. Thus, regarding military intervention, they are more liberal than the liberals. Therefore, it does seem odd that Ron Paul's running as a Republican, but you'll note he isn't doing very well in the Republican primaries, being at odds with Republican philosophy. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Libertarians are not whatsoever "isolationist". That's a complete misrepresentation. Most (not all) Libertarians are non-interventionist, meaning opposed to military adventures in other countries other than in defense of the homeland. But this is not out of nationalism; rather, they don't like Americans being compelled to support these adventures (financially or via conscription), are suspicious of the effect on the liberties of persons in the other countries, and fear that liberties will be lost at home on the excuse that we are at war. --Trovatore (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like "isolationism" to me, as the US was after WW1. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Then you don't know what the word means. See isolationism and non-interventionism; there's a decent treatment of the difference. It's a flat error to use isolationist when you mean non-interventionist. --Trovatore (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You said "Libertarians are not whatsoever 'isolationist'." That's wrong, as isolationism includes non-interventionism. You should have said "Libertarians are only isolationist with regards to foreign intervention, and not in regards to immigration and trade", if that's what you meant. StuRat (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I utterly reject that. Libertarians are not isolationist, period. They may have some positions in common with isolationists, but that's a different thing entirely. --Trovatore (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

They have some positions in common with isolationists but are not whatsoever isolationist. OK, with that little bit of double-think I think we are done. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

StuRat, you're getting frankly offensive here, starting with using the offensive label isolationist for non-interventionists. It's like saying that Communists wanted economic development in Russia, so if you want economic development in Russia, you must be Communist at least in that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing offensive about the term "isolationist". If there was, then all the US history books, written in the US, which stated that the US was isolationist following WW1, were offensive towards the US. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's offensive if you disagree with isolationism. Isolationists want to isolate. Non-interventionists have no such goal; they just want to avoid certain sorts of state action. --Trovatore (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And regarding your false analogy with communism, "wanting economic development in Russia" is not an inherent part of communism (the Khmer Rouge for example, didn't much care about that), while "wanting to avoid all foreign intervention" is an inherent part of isolationism. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

StuRat, it's just flat the wrong word. Period. Isolationists want minimal interaction between their country and the outside world. Non-interventionists don't want that. There is no part of non-interventionism that is isolationist, at all, period. --Trovatore (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

...except the non-interventionism. StuRat (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-interventionism has no isolationist aspect whatsoever. Isolationism may have a non-interventionist aspect. But that's not non-interventionism's fault. You can't control who decides to agree with you, in the context of a larger abhorrent philosophy. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

StuRat, I suggest you read these references [2][3]. Isolationism, with protectionism as its central pillar, is a nationalist position. On the other hand, non-interventionism is based on the non-aggression axiom. Country A has no moral right to attack country B unless B attacks A. Since isolationism emphasizes forced separation of nations, isolationism is a variant of interventionism. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"Thus, regarding military intervention, they are more liberal than the liberals." This is a silly statement. American liberalism has never been isolationist. Ideologically it is not isolationist — it is often quite interventionist when it comes to defense and humanitarian intervention. Isolationism/interventionism doesn't map along the traditional conservative/liberal ideological bounds very well in the United States, but it has traditionally been more prominent amongst conservatives than it has liberals. The real distinguishing point isn't whether or not you ever intervene, but what you supposedly intervene for. Historically speaking, of course, this is all a big mash in the 20th century, where whether people start or avoid wars has little obvious to do with what their economic and social ideology supposedly is. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I did say Republicans favor interventions which "support US interests abroad" (unlike Democrats, which might support interventions for humanitarian reasons). I don't believe Libertarians are likely to support any intervention. The drug and prostitution legalization examples are other cases where they are more liberal than the average Democrat. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

After the war with Spain, Americans who advocated military neutrality were smeared as "isolationist", as if violence were the only way to engage with the rest of the world. The label stuck – but it's still only a smear. —Tamfang (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Matt Ridley, the British writer on genetics, winner of the 2011 Friedrich Hayek prize, and erstwhile opponent of state intervention in the banking industry, is a libertarian in economic policy, though I'm not sure about social thinking. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

By "erstwhile" do you mean he has changed his views, or merely become inactive, or is this an example of the weirdly common misuse of "erstwhile" to mean something like "worthy"? —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Libertarians should be called "conservative economically (low taxes and minimal government) and liberal socially (drug and prostitution legalization)". StuRat (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the wrong way around. Broadly speaking, contemporary American conservatism is libertarian economically and anti-libertarian socially, and contemporary American "liberalism" is anti-libertarian economically and libertarian socially. Libertarianism is more philosophically fundamental and consistent than either of those philosophies, so that's the more useful description. --Trovatore (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems more useful to me to describe how the fringe party fits into the dominant parties, since, in the case of Ron Paul, he is trying to do precisely that. StuRat (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That means you're letting yourself be overly influenced by what other people think.

Paul, though, is not a libertarian. He's a conservative with some libertarian instincts. --Trovatore (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I formed my own opinions of him by watching him in the debates. His anti-interventionist statements were not at all in line with the majority of Republicans. StuRat (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

He is certainly not a standard-issue Republican. That doesn't make him not a conservative. My biggest reason for saying that is his "We The People Act", which appears to be an attempt to roll back certain Supreme Court decisions (e.g. Lawrence v. Texas) that were solidly based in individual liberty concerns. --Trovatore (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul is largely libertarian. But he espouses some non-libertarian views. For example, Paul once supported prohibition of flag desecration. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna say that I've never heard a libertarian object to the summary "socially liberal, fiscally conservative," but now I have. —Tamfang (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We have an article for that (Libertarianism), which cites:

• Vallentyne, Peter. "Libertarianism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
• Woodcock, George. Anarchism: a history of libertarian ideas and movements. Petersborough, Ontario: Broadview press. pp. 11–31 especially 18. ISBN 1-55111-629-4.
• Roderick T. Long (1998). "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class" (PDF). Social Philosophy and Policy. 15 (2): 303–349: at p. 304. doi:10.1017/S0265052500002028.
• And specifically on the USLP, Watts, Duncan (2002). Understanding American government and politics: a guide for A2 politics students. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. p. 246.

These supply a high level definition of "libertarianism," and may help to explain why a US political party with a particular ideology uses the term (though I'd suggest a history of US anarcho-capitalism and pro-market philosophical libertarianism in particular for the US meanings). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Where does the money in securities arbitrage and high frequency automated trading come from?

Am I correct in assuming that stock market arbitrage and high frequency automated trading make money from the more predictable large blocks of trades such as those which large institutional investors like mutual funds engage in? If not, assuming that the profits don't materialize out of thin air, who is on the losing end of arbitrage and automatic trading profits? 70.59.28.93 (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your assumption is basically correct. Automated trading (including, typically, arbitrage) involves the use of high-power computing and proprietary algorithms as a basis for speculative trades. Those algorithms are designed to profit at the expense of market participants (institutional and individual retail investors) pursuing slower, more traditional investment strategies. By moving faster than market participants without the benefit of those algorithms, automated traders can buy lower and sell higher (or the opposite in a shorting scenario) than other market participants. Incidentally, the best institutional investors may have their own algorithms to minimize their exposure to this kind of loss of spread. However (and relevant to your next question), ordinary retail investors are completely exposed. For this reason, a well-managed index fund will almost always outperform a nonprofessional individual investor picking stocks. I know index funds are not supposed to be managed per se, but I am referring to the use of algorithms to carefully time index fund trades and not to more active management. Marco polo (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Do all 401(k) accounts lock participants into a small set of mutual funds?

What proportion of 401(k) retirement savings plans give the employee the ability to select specific stock and bond securities instead of forcing them to select from a small set of mutual funds? 70.59.28.93 (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's employer specific. Some lock you into a few choices, and others let you invest in almost anything. I don't think it's possible to determine how many plans fall into each category. RudolfRed (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Effective date of UK Budget changes

We have another Budget due out today in Britain, and I have a really dumb question about it. When do the changes being announced actually take effect? Is it immediate, as of 6th April, or some other date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.80.209 (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It depends. Changes to duties on fuel, alocohol and tobacco generally come into effect immediately. Some tax changes may come into effect at the beginning of the next tax year, in April. Others may be deferred until April 2013. There is no single "effective date". Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Further to Gandalf's answer, tax on fuel, alcohol and tobacco often comes into effect as soon as practical (usually midnight), in order to prevent panic buying.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This page (towards the bottom) gives some good detail on the legislative process. The budget (strictly, the Finance Bill) does not become law until given royal assent (when it becomes the Finance Act). By law this must happen within 30 days of the budget speech. In the intervening period, any changes which have been announced that require an immediate adjustment to regulations (like the aforementioned fuel, alcohol and tobacco duties) can be enacted through a resolution taken immediately after the Chancellor finishes speaking. The changes can be in place for 6pm on the day of the budget speech if required, or come in later as necessary. If for any reason the Finance Bill is not passed within 30 days, those changes lapse. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Although lots of packets of cigarettes and tobacco have the old price printed on them, so you can actually still buy them at the old price until the new stock is delivered to the shop. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Is there any information available on exactly when Ron Paul ended practicing medicine? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly scaled down during campaigns, stopped while holding office, then taken up again after any defeats he may have had, until the scaling down for the next campaign. I don't know if he had to renew a medical licence or business permit every year, so an actual 'stopping' point may be hard to nail down.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My 2008 edition of The Almanac of American Politics lists "Practicing physician, 1968–1996" under Professional Career in Rep. Paul's entry (Texas 14th District, page 1575). According to this entry, 1996 was the year that Dr. Paul was again elected to Congress, having previously served in 1976 and 1978-84; he was a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1968 (during the Vietnam War), having obtained his medical degree [M.D.] from Duke University in 1961. (Dr. Paul's official Congressional biography adds that he then did his internship and residency training at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit in 1961 and 1962.) It may be too neat, but that gives logical beginning and ending dates for his formal medical career as a civilian, starting after his military discharge and ending when he started his most recent stretch of Congressional service. More information in The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (based on The Congressional Directory, this site depends heavily on information supplied, or at least approved, by the members themselves or their offices; for simple uncontroversial factual questions, however, this should be no problem.) You could also check out the footnotes and references in Wikipedia's own article about Ron Paul. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of WEDGE - FORMATION on horse (in the Middle Ages)

Medieval knights, along with their men-at-arms or cavalry in general would often tend to use a wedge-formation when charging on the horseback, but was this ALWAYS the prefered formation ?

Or would they only use it against infantry ?

If, say 20 men on horseback clashed with 20 other men on horseback would they likely adopt a wedge-formation? Or would both sides more likely adopt a flat sideways line (provided the terrain allowed them to) ? How could chosen formation be of any benefit when facing such a similar foe with similar numbers ? ...Of course, if both sides used the same formation they would hugely cancel each other out and it would likely be a closely fought battle, but that's a whole different matter...

Krikkert7 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your question doesn't specify time very well ("medieval" is a huge slice of time - when I was at Uni, in English history it covered about a millennium, from the departure of the Romans to the Wars of the Roses) or location (charging in a wedge at Swiss pikemen in a narrow Alpine mountain pass wasn't recommended). Military tactics evolved in different ways at different places at different times. That's the same now as it was then. It also depended on how many cavalry you had (something the Crusader armies were very conscious of) how lightly or heavily they were armoured (something the Saracen armies were very conscious of) the terrain (something the English failed to take account of at Bannockburn etc

So I think the answer is no, it definitely wasn't "ALWAYS" the preferred formation. --Dweller (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

HIGH middle ages is the most relevant to me. 1100-1250 to be as precise as I can... Krikkert7 (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a military historian, but I seem to recall that cavalry would rarely charge another cavalry formation. Cavalry would normally charge the other side's infantry, attempting to break that formation and rout them. This is usually how it worked during the crusades, for example, which fall within the time period you're looking for. Whenever the two armies had more cavalry than infantry, they tended to avoid battle; simply showing up with all your knights was usually a sufficient show of force, and the two sides might shadow each other for awhile. This tactic was also used to draw the armies into a specific location to engage in a larger battle, but with infantry, so the two cavalries were still unlikely to attack each other directly. (We have an article on this - chevauchée.) Among the Turkic armies, they normally used mounted archers, so they would never engage the other side's cavalry directly, but instead harrassed them from afar with arrows, and ideally to provoked them into charging into an ambush (it's amazing how often the crusader armies fell for that). Our articles on medieval warfare and heavy cavalry don't seem to answer your question, and as I say, this isn't really my specialty, but there are definitely some excellent books on the subject. I would suggest "Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1100-1300", by John France. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Cavalry tactics says that the wedge was adopted to counter "formations of spearmen or pikemen combined with crossbowmen or longbow archers", with the most heavily armoured at the tip (Tactics of heavy cavalry using ranged weapons), while lancers charged in line and many medieval knights dismounted and fought on foot (Tactics of heavy cavalry using lances). This article (How did medieval "knights" charge? ) gives some historical examples of where wedges were used. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The answer is definitely no. Lightly armoured cavaly in that period was predominantly used for skirmishing and scouting, with some skilled mounted troops able to use bows to inflict damage before retreating faster than the mass of enemy infantry could move. It may have often or even usually been true of heavy cavalry, but again, the "always" strikes me as unlikely. On a wide, hard-surfaced plain, a force with a large cavalry disposition facing an enemy that is not behind stakes, pikes, trenches or palisades, would be daft not to at least consider a broader attack, or using at least some of the cavalry to outflank the enemy, in the classic Pincer movement manoeuvre, well known to Western, educated soldiers since at least the shocking Battle of Cannae in 216 BCE. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thnx for answers guys. I'll also take a look at the links you've provided 88.91.236.247 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

At the Battle of Grandson, one of the French Burgundian wedges accidently hit a Swiss Keil to the detriment of the gendarmes, however, this is not mentioned in our article. Before knights could form a wedge in battle, they needed to be trained. So, not all knights could form a wedge. Medieval knights preferred to fight knights before fighting infantry.
Sleigh (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I heard that either the long bow or crossbow ended the use of body armour, the same as the gatling gun ended the use of cavalry. I am not sure on these but you may want to look into it. Advancements in bow technology and tactics, may have affected formations.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You may well have heard that, but it is not demonstrably true on either count, I'm afraid. The last recorded cavalry sabre-charge seems to have been by Poles in Soviet service, the 1st "Warsaw" Independent Cavalry Brigade, against the Germans at the Battle of Schoenfeld in 1945, and it was apparently rather successful. The last by British forces (the Burma Frontier Force), was in 1942. The Germans employed a fully-horsed cavalry division in the Battle of France in 1940. The Soviets disbanded their last cavalry brigade in 1955. The Indian Army still has the 61st Cavalry Regiment, although what they do with them isn't clear. Body armour is still being used in Afghanistan, but conventional medieval-style armour was still widely used in the English Civil War (long after crossbows had been abandoned), [4] [5] and British infantry at Waterloo reported that the sound of their musket balls bouncing off the armour of the French Cuirassiers was like hail on a slate roof. They were still wearing their cuirasses into battle in 1914. [6]. Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

US federal court cases skipping the circuit courts of appeals

Under what circumstances can a decision by a US federal district court be appealed directly to the Supreme Court? Alexander v. Fioto, 430 U.S. 634 (1977), appears to be an example of this, and an article in the ABA Journal doesn't explain why. 129.79.38.107 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The only time a district court decision can be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court is when there is an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges, pursuant to 28 USC § 1253. For example, a district court of three judges shall be convened when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body, pursuant to 28 USC § 2284(a). There probably are some other examples when three-judge district courts are used, but they're quite rare. John M Baker (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Fioto was suing to try to get veterans' benefits that he thought he was entitled to get, so I guess that's one of the "some other examples." Thanks! 129.79.38.107 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Always look at the text of the decision. The Court almost always has a boring recitation near the start of the opinion about its jurisdiction and the case's prior history, which likely includes the info you want.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, the court cited 28 USC 2282, which then said that an interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress on grounds of unconstitutionality should not be granted unless the application therefor has been heard and determined by a three-judge district court. That provision has since been repealed. John M Baker (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

District court panels are not the only place where there are direct appeals to the Supreme Court. Certain appeals from the Sherman Act for instance, may lie with the Supreme Court. See 15 U.S.C. 29(b). I'm not sure if there are other examples but there may be. Shadowjams (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I think 28 USC § 3904 similarly allows such an appeal. 28 USC § 2101(b) is the part of the Court's procedures that specify the time limit on "any other direct appeal." Shadowjams (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmph. The U.S. Code should put its Supreme Court jurisdictional provisions in one place, instead of scattering them over multiple titles. John M Baker (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

English Parliament

Would the English Parliament of medieval times have been referred to as a "she" or "it" or both? -- 20:22, 21 March 2012‎ User:Doug Coldwell

'Medieval' is a little vague, but the OED has citations from c1300 and c1400 referring to Parliament as þe parlement (i.e. the Parliament). You can see for yourself here, although you need a login. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And for much of that time they would have been speaking French in Parliament, which is itself a French word. It's a masculine word in French, for what that's worth. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

By the 14th century, regular grammatical gender in English (i.e. arbitrary assignment of specific nouns to be masculine, feminine, and neuter, much as in modern German) had already disappeared, and was replaced by so-called "natural gender" (that is, there were no longer morphological gender distinctions in adjective and determiner forms, and whether a masculine, feminine, or neuter pronoun was used to refer back to a noun generally depended on whether the noun denoted male, female, or sexless entities, with certain exceptions and complications). Therefore Parliament would have been referred to as "it" at that time and afterwards, unless it was metaphorically personified (as ships and nations traditionally were) -- but I don't remember encountering any such personification... AnonMoos (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "Mother of Parliaments" (no relation to Mother of Parliament, to which it unfortunately redirects) is sometimes loosely bandied about as a reference to the English Parliament, which might lead one to suppose it's a she. But that expression was coined by John Bright in reference not to the Parliament, but to England herself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've created a new short article, The mother of Parliaments (expression), and fixed that redirect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all the great answers from y'all.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

British budget process

So, I'm reading about the new British budget announced today. The Chancellor has announced that duty on cigarettes will rise from 6pm tonight, and stamp duty will rise to 7% at midnight. My question is how can these taxes be raised before the budget is passed? Surely the House of Commons need to approve new taxes. User:SamUK 21:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

After George Osborne gives the budget speech, the house then votes on the budget. As the Coalition govt has a majority, then unless a significant number of MPs rebel, the budget will be passed into law by the vote. The chancellor is just announcing his intentions, which then have to be approved by the house before they become law. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It is worth noting that the increase in cigarette duty and changes to stamp duty will be done under Henry VIII clauses (i.e. via secondary legislation). The timetable suggests that both will be (were) instigated as negative statutory instruments, meaning that MPs would have had to pass an explicit motion of they wanted either to not come into effect whenever the government wants it to (rather than expressly vote for it as in the case of primary legislation), hence the speedy turnaround. Other more major measures will have to be included in the formal Finance Bill (later Finance Act, of course), which is primary legislation and will face a lengthier legislative process, although one that will (unless there is rebellion from the government side) result in the measures being passed. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Jarry1250 is right to refer to the Henry VIII clauses. They are contained in the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. When the Chancellor sits down, a long list of resolutions are tabled to change the various tax rates and arrangements; only a few of them are voted on immediately, and the Opposition is highly unlikely to vote against them because it would mean the Leader of the Opposition would not get on the television to reply to the budget. So the cigarette duties etc go through on the nod. Then there is a five day debate on the budget in general, on a motion known as the 'Amendment of the Law' motion because it states that it is "expedient to amend the law" in line with the changes announced in the budget. These are last year's budget resolutions. At the end of the debate, some of the budget resolutions will be opposed and voted on, while others will go through unopposed; MPs end up in a series of votes. Last year there were four - see Commons Hansard cols 280-309. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Were there any historical socialist movements that the Nazis approved of?

So the debate over what exactly socialism, national socialism and capitalism really mean is a heated and contentious topic. But irregardless of what the term socialism "really" means, it seems strange and rather unprecedented for a political movement to adapt an ideological label, when they disagree strongly with every previous moment or thinker to apply that label. So it just seems odd that the Nazis would hate and despise everyone who called themselves socialist up till 1923, but then adapt the name socialist for themselves. They hated both the Leninist, Social Democatic and Anarchist branches of socialism. It seems analagous to a far-left group in 2012 USA calling themselves Internationalist Capitalist, but also claiming that every capitalist from Adam Smith onward was a bloodsucking exploiter. So I was just wondering if maybe during the 19th or 20th century there were perhaps any movements or leaders that used the term socialist, that the Nazis were approving of. --Gary123 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This always seemed odd to me, too. Perhaps it was a way to convince the large number of followers of socialism in Germany in those days into joining the Nazi Party, similar to how most nations with "Democratic" in their official title aren't democratic at all, like North Korea. If the Nazi's had titled their party "The Jew-hating, Aryan supremacy Party for Global Warfare", they might not have attracted as many followers. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

German research into the class composition of the NSDAP resolved the myth of the petits-bourgeois composition of the NSDAP, at least at the gross membership level; but, did find that working class NSDAP members were recently off the farm. Much like Bismark's nationalist "socialism" (as in state intervention) appealed to the German imaginary national community, so too did the NSDAP appeal to a corporatist national community. Of course, along side murdering trade unionists and socialists; they shut down the works councils in the factories when they lost the elections. Before they lost the elections they were indifferent to the works councils. The limit of corporatist socialism in fascist Germany was the independence of the working class. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to define political parties' ideologies based on who they killed, it should be noted that the Communist regime of the USSR was also heavily opposed to the labor movement, once in power, and oppressed people in that political area quite a bit. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 08:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And this is where you're wrong. The Soviet elite were fundamentally codependent on the industrial (but not the agricultural) proletariat, and the wage, productivity and promotion structure in soviet industry was formed on this latent basis of working class power. See Sheila Fitzpatrick; Miklos Haraszti; or Simon Pirani. The Soviets murdered trade unionists, and disorganised political workers; but, simultaneously, they didn't manage to erode latent forms of proletarian power, such as the go slow, norm busting or the centrality of proletarian knowledge to actual production processes. Our article Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 goes into the continued survival of these forms of latent power. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "socialist" was added to the name of the party in the context of the turbulent fringe politics of Bavaria in 1920 (a year after the failed attempt to establish a Bavarian Soviet Republic). Probably it was meant to appeal to those with socialist leanings, but it was more specifically intended to imply that German nationalists (not Marxists) were the true guardians of the interests of German workers. There were those in the Nazi party who took the socialist thing very seriously, but they repeatedly lost out in internal party policy debates or power struggles... AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert (and I speak almost no German), but social-nationalist, national-syndicalist and similar terms were not uncommon in racially-tinged European nationalist and imperialist movements at the turn of the 19th/20th century. Specifically, part of Hitler's youth was spent in the Vienna of Mayor Karl Lueger of the Christian Social Party. Apart from purely demagogic or opportunistic motives, many nationalists and imperialists of the era (whether liberal-democratic, conservative-authoritarian, or proto-fascist), such as Otto von Bismarck, Theodore Roosevelt, Joseph Chamberlain and the British Social Imperialists with their Fabian Socialist allies, believed that a strong unified nation with a robustly-growing population needed social cohesion, physical health and popular enthusiasm, which in turn required improving the health, education, welfare, working conditions, living conditions and family life of the working classes. They also saw some need to decrease existing inequality and increase realistic opportunities for future advancement if the working and lower-middle classes were to identify with a single nation and empire (rather than with an international and anti-nationalist revolutionary movement). See One nation conservatism. ¶ I think that some Nazis sometimes favorably (though in limited terms) contrasted the patriotic socialism of Ferdinand Lassalle to that of the rival "scientific socialism" of Marx and Engels. For the more socialistically-oriented elements in the NSDAP, see, for example, Gregor Strasser, Otto Strasser and even Josef Goebbels. But as AnonMoos said above, as the Nazis approached and achieved power, Hitler's decisions almost always leaned towards non-socialist or anti-socialist policies and against socialistic ones. (Gregor Strasser was assassinated by the SS during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.) See Charisma and Factionalism in the Nazi Party by Joseph Nyomarkay (U. Minnesota Press, 1967, ISBN 978-0-816-60429-6), Hitler's Social Revolution: class and status in Nazi Germany, 1933-1939 by David Schoenbaum (Doubleday 1966, Anchor paperback 1967, reissued by W.W.Norton in 1980 & 1997, ISBN 0-393-31554-1) and The German Workers and the Nazis by F.L. Carsten (Scolar Press, Aldershot, 1995, ISBN 0-859-67998-5). See also "Hitler's Welfare State" a highly sceptical review of Schoenbaum's book by Heinz Lubasz in The New York Review of Books, December 19, 1968 (payment or subscription required for full review). A short simple book with documents by Eugen Weber, Varieties of Fascism: doctrines of revolution in the twentieth century (Van Nostrand Anvil Original, 1964, reprinted 1982, ISBN 978-0-898-74444-6), is based on the thesis that fascism is a fusion of nationalism and socialism, a thesis widely challenged by other historians. For Social Imperialism, see Imperialism and Social Reform: English social-imperial thought, 1895-1914 by Bernard Semmel (Harvard/Cambridge 1960, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1968, OCLC 213856001); its conclusion sees Social Imperialist roots in the thinking of Sir Oswald Mosley, who moved from Conservatism to Labour to Fascism. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the influential works on the thinking of the various radical nationalists in the Weimar Republic was Oswald Spengler's Preussentum und Sozialismus, which proposed a link between the German character and "socialism", which he defined in corporatist terms. Valiantis (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Did they really disagree so fundamentally with, say, the Leninists? On what to me is perhaps the most fundamental question — namely, to what extent should individual choice be constrained to fit collective goals — it seems to me that they were in complete agreement. The name of the favored collective was different ("proletariat" vs "Volk"), so I suppose that is a disagreement, in the same sense that I might disagree with you as to which of the two of us deserves a bigger raise, but it doesn't seem like a very fundamental one. --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Trovatore, I think that the view that that's 'the most fundamental question' is a very modern one. I also think you're conflating Lenin with Stalin in a misleading way. The Nazis were not interested in international brotherhood (which at the time was a key issue); they were much more focussed on the strength of the state and of their chosen ethnic group. The early Soviets, on the other hand, were extremely keen on the international dimension: "Working people of all nations, unite!". Obviously this changed with Stalin's ascendancy and his focus on 'socialism in one country'. This was much more compatible with fascism, and arguably paved the way for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lenin may have been internationalist, but that doesn't make him not statist. Maybe he wanted a really really big state, covering the whole world. Or maybe not; I don't know. Either way he wasn't big on individual choice. --Trovatore (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)